I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

You know what they say about good intentions. I would contend that, no, it ISNT the responsibility of the government, but ultimately of the individual / whoever is responsible for their welfare (which isnt the government).

The adult citizens should be intelligent enough to realize the rumors are just lies, and develop skepticism about the things they read.

After a while one would think that people would stop watching fictionalized reports, but Fox News and talk radio proves that there will always be a market for yellow journalism no matter how discredited they may become. However the Chinese leaders should understand that one of the reasons why rumors spread so intensely is a serious lack of objective non-government infotainment that would keep the public informed if/when the people again try to rise up for democracy. The quick spread of such rumors might e

The adult citizens should be intelligent enough to realize the rumors are just lies, and develop skepticism about the things they read.

After a while one would think that people would stop watching fictionalized reports, but Fox News and talk radio proves that there will always be a market for yellow journalism no matter how discredited they may become.

Actually, Fox News' success was a result of intelligent people being fed up with the distortion coming from the left-wing news sources. It does seem that Fox News has gone way overboard, and in response some new left-wing networks (MSNBC) have gone way overboard too. But we conservatives have put up with decades of left-wing bias and distortion from the major networks, PBS and most large newspapers.

They all have bias - some more than others - but I don't see how you can say Fox News is "discredited".

After a while one would think that people would stop watching fictionalized reports, but Fox News and talk radio proves that there will always be a market for yellow journalism no matter how discredited they may become.

I try not to but into these "Fox News sucks" conversations, but that takes some gall after the crap the other stations just tried to pull with the doctored Zimmerman audio samples, and I could mention several other incidents as well. Fox gets it wrong on occasion, but Im not sure Ive ever seen them doctor audio.

To be fair, when it comes to distorting and spinning the news, FOX News and Talk Radio are the most obvious examples. A few months back, I heard one right-wing talk radio host go on for quite a while about how there will be no 2012 election because Obama is going to declare himself dictator over the United States and rule for the next forty years. (No, I'm seriously not making that up. And people think right-wing distortions of reality are no worse what happens on the left.) True, the MSNBC tape was edited and the producer was fired. The most unfortunate thing about that incident is that now the right-wing media gets to pretend that they're no worse than anyone else and that they don't distort the news worse than anyone else. Heck, even Newt Gingritch and Rick Santorum have said that FOX News has a bias (http://reallyfoxnews.tumblr.com/post/20975850816/i-assume-its-because-rupert-murdoch-at-some):

"In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact." - Newt Gingritch

It seems to me that Rupert Murdoch longs for the days when News Agencies can throw around their weight as kingmakers in political races.

>>>Obama is going to declare himself dictator over the United States and rule for the next forty years.

You should hear the crap coming out of left-wing talk radio. It's just as bad. Example: Thom Hartmann. I can't believe the ridiculous things he says about republicans. He would have us believe the Repubs are the American version of Nazis (before the killing started).

As for FOX, I don't know what it's like this year, but in the years 2008, 09, 10 the other channels, during their 6 or 6:30 news

France and Russia are proto-fascist? Right now I would argue their citizens have more freedoms than American ones.

They need not worry about sexual assault/groping by TSA or VIPR teams at random spots throughout the country. They need not worry about being labeled a "terrorist" simply for owning a gun or carrying a pocket constitution or paying with cash (and then being jailed indefinitely without a right to trial ia the NDAA). They need not worry about warrantless searches of their person, car, or home u

The most unfortunate thing about that incident is that now the right-wing media gets to pretend that they're no worse than anyone else and that they don't distort the news worse than anyone else.

I really should keep track of the times where left-leaning media utters blatant falsehoods, doctors quotes / audio / video, takes things out of context, etc, because it really is amazing how selective memory can be when you dont want to accept that your own sides supporters can be wrong.

The most eggregious thing I can think of from Fox was that case where they claimed Mass Effect had fully animated explicit pornography available ingame, and it turned out the "reporter" covering the issue hadnt actually play

Right. Because if I yell "fire!" in a movie theater, adult citizens should be intelligent enough to realize I'm screwing with them. No, there are exceptions to free speech for some pretty good reasons. This may originally have been one of them, although I doubt it; 210,000 posts is a lot of "fire!" yells.

The bigger issue here is that China is in a state where it's easy to believe these types of rumors. This free speech crackdown wouldn't be necessary in the first place if weren't so busy doing things

The fire in the theater argument was used by the Supreme Court to justify arresting anti-World War 1 protestors. In other words suppression of the 1st amendment. One of the dissenting justices said the comparison was invalid:

- An anti-war protestor is the equivalent of a man standing OUTSIDE a theater and warning people not to go, because there's a fire and they could be killed. i.e. It is a form of protected speech, and the man should not be jailed.

But, yeah, common sense reasons for doing some things (arresting the fire-yeller) have been abused to do different things way out of the scope of the first thing (tossing the fire-yeller's family in Guantanamo) since the Patriot Act.

I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

What does a large population especially have to do with anything? I always hear that excuse for everything China does and it really doesn't mean anything. Most of them don't even have Internet access. It's just another power system trying to control thought. They'd do the same here, if we let them. And China would do the same if they had 1/4 the people they have now. Look what's going on in Hungary. Is that because of the population of 10,000,000? Pathetic excuse that doesn't hold water or up to scr

I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

Rumors of Chemtrails, Black Helicopters, Secret societies that run our lives, and all the rest happen all the time.No need to over react.

If China had an open and free media no one would pay any attention to the rumors. For example; I heard that Washington DC is on lock down and there are riots in the street. There was an attempted coup. Do you believe any of that? Why?

I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

By having free speech in the first place. These rumors can easily spread in China because a growing number of Chinese people believe that it's plausible that news of this kind of unrest could and would be suppressed by the government. The government's actions here are reinforcing that belief.

Governments don't try to prevent panic. They try to USE panic to their own purposes. At least the governments that really have control of their populace. 9/11 and the moves the government took after that, which had absolutely nothing to do with preventing another attack, should have amply demonstrated that fact.

I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

You consistently tell the people the truth so that people believe you when you deny that the rumors are true. On the other hand if you develop a reputation for saying that legitimate protests are all being caused by hooligans and foreigners, then the people won't believe you when you try to stop rumors.

You can get away with lying about some things. Few Chinese people go to Taiwan or the South China Sea so it is easy to lie about sovereignty claims over those. But plenty of Chinese people have legitima

I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?

So, what if the "rumours" are true, and the Chinese government is trying to hide another Tiananmen Square situation?

If they are really rumors, in a free society they'd met a wall of evidence pointing that they are false. But once you start killing the people that say wrong things, people will stop saying anything (why risk?), and such rummors grow.

1. get agents provocateurs to spread false rumours2. put in place a system of censorship for the SAFETY of THE PEOPLE3. no ???4. 1984!!!

Reichstag fire anyone?

Replying to another guy, yes china is the model to follow, if you bear in mind that evolution of society consists in upper classes, or better, bunches of people (because upper classes are kapos not masters) always trying to exert more control on all the others.

You might still see things in red and blue, but a better model, prediction wise, seems to imp

I find it a bit disturbing that EU and US leaders are saying China is a good model to follow.

The EU, like the US, considers money to be a good thing to follow. China is making rapid improvements in its money generation. Civil liberties, not so much. But then again, with the US having the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, I would say civil liberties are something most people only believe they have these days.

Isn't that just a guarantee that they'll buy the dollar at a guaranteed price, and a guarantee that they'll sell it at that same price, or just a little difference due to seigniorage? How is that cheating? Seriously. I don't know the actual mechanism.

It nullifies any attempt to speculate on the Yuan on the Forex. Due to the breakneck growth of China, the Yuan would be much higher valued than it is today compared to the US dollar. This means that strength of the Yuan is kept artificially low so that exports can remain artificially cheap and also provides protectionism for China from imports that are artificially expensive.

How do they nullify it? If I and my freind next to me speculate on the value of Yuan 6 months from now. And agree to place a bet on it. Will the Chinese govt nullify the bet (I dont live in China, just in case you were wondering)

It ment that the value of the yuan was tied to value of the US dollar. So nullification is in the form of a fixed exchange rate. Betting on the yuan was more or less the same as betting on the dollar and vice versa. Though because the value of the dollar has been dropping, China is experiencing inflation. This is why China is now looking to diversify so as to not be pulled under. Can't blame them really.

It nullifies any attempt to speculate on the Yuan on the Forex... This means that strength of the Yuan is kept artificially low so that exports can remain artificially cheap

No, that means that the people of China will speculate on goods prices, instead of foreigners speculating on the currency value. The result is that inflation eats everything that the weak currency created, just like every time a government decides to mess with exchange rates. (And people get poorer.)

You're the first person to take a story about China's egregious behavior, and turn it around on the US.

In the first 10 posts on the story, no less. Bravo, sir. Bravo. *golf clap*

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the

This is china. The communist party leadership are protecting themselves (and their own people, but mostly themselves) from the risks of a free flow of information. They feel no guilt, and see it as their duty to protect themselves (and sometimes the people) against these 'malicious rumours'.

In a way china shot itself in the foot a long time ago, and doesn't have an easy way out.

There are people in the 'press' who report anything, censorship or not in china. Just as currency controls could always be und

No. They feel fear. Losing power means destruction in an authoritarian regime. You are either in power or you are subjugated by those who are. You don't lose an election and reinvent yourself. You lose your immunity from prosecution, your wealth, possibly your freedom and even your life.

Those realities leave precious little room for subtleties like "guilt."

I find it a bit disturbing that EU and US leaders are saying China is a good model to follow.

That view appears [nytimes.com] among statists from time to time when liberal democracies fail to cooperate. The most vital contemporary source of support for

They are blocking free speech by users. Surely there must be some "twinge" in their brains that says, "This is wrong to take down people's posts."

I'm sure that the Chinese leaders and censors are doing this stuff because they believe it's for the betterment of Chinese society and China as a nation. In their view, they're removing lies that get people all stirred up, they're silencing the rebel-rousers inciting people to do something bad, the no-good / ill-informed "rebels" are harming the stability and legitimacy of the Chinese government (whom they most likely believe are doing a good job compared to all the alternatives), the "rebels" are dangerous to China's continued economic growth (which would help Chinese people in general and China's position internationally), the censors are maintaining stability and the status-quo in society and preventing an unknown and destructive anarchy. I'm betting those are the beliefs in their heads, and it would mean that they don't feel guilty about what they're doing. It doesn't actually require that Chinese censors are motivated by an evil self-interest.

They are blocking free speech by users. Surely there must be some "twinge" in their brains that says, "This is wrong to take down people's posts."

A normal person with a normal conscience would probably think that, but how far do you think you can go in the Chinese government if you have a normal conscience. The system selects for people who are willing to violate rights and lie convincingly about it - even far more so than the typical democratic system.

Why would a government, even a repressive one, crack down on rumors for no reason? Is unfounded rumors (not actual dissent, mind, but weird stuff like this) spreading and causing actual trouble a problem in China?

The rumors may not be true, but there is a shakeup in the ruling class. Some has leaked out in official releases around the sacking of Bo and his wife, but the people in power are reacting to unexpected events. Some are falling out of favor and some are trying to consolidate power. All in an environment where the loser and their families don't just retire to a quiet life in the country. It is unlikely the government will change, or there will be a popular uprising, but something is happening in the hall

Why would a government, even a repressive one, crack down on rumors for no reason? Is unfounded rumors (not actual dissent, mind, but weird stuff like this) spreading and causing actual trouble a problem in China?

They did it to protect the people in their charge from being misled into harmful behavior by liars. Duh!

Lying on a grand scale causes millions of people to act contrary to what is sane and wise. When you get right down to it, intentionally and maliciously causing millions of people to act contrary to what is sane and wise causes far more harm than raping and killing a bus full of children.

If I drove you crazy by injecting you with LSD, it would be clear to everyone that I'd assaulted you. If I do it with

Telling a falsehood is an actual provable act, to the extent you can prove the validity or invalidity of the claim. On the other hand "lying" is a thought offense, because lying requires telling a falsehood KNOWINGLY, and nobody can say what another actually believes or does not believe inside his own mind. Punishing someone for what you THINK they believe or do not believe is clearly an evil act.

And equally, punishing someone for telling a falsehood which they believe to be true is clearly an evil act beca

There were rumors of a possible coup [bbc.co.uk] by a faction of PLA officers who allegedly supported Bo Xilai, a former Politburo candidate who was sacked on allegations of corruption and murder. No real evidence, but the central government was already uneasy because such a high profile scandal has introduced significant uncertainty to their succession planning. Therefore, the Chinese government did not appreciate such rumors and speculation spreading like wildfire on the Internet.

... Beijing Police arrested a man believed to have shouted "Fire!" in the crowded downtown theatre where dozens of movie viewers were injured in the mad stampede to evacuate. Fortunately there were no deaths. Fire officials found no evidence there had been any fire, smoke, or any risk of a fire. A theatre official said the theatre is a modern one built to the utmost safety standards.

The government in response passed legislation that all citizens would have to wear microphones around their necks which would monitor everything they said. To prevent someone else from yelling out fire.

Inquiries about whether the microphones would be used just to monitor words like "Fire" and not used to monitor political speech were met with uncontrollable laughter from the government spokesperson.

You're both right. There needs to be enough of a deterrent to minimize the chance of people from generating a mass panic, but not so much that even the smallest freedoms are stomped on. China's leadership isn't known for worrying too much about that second bit.

Chinese officials are probably mortified by the possibility that some day, Chinese citizens may band together/organize over the internet, and decide to have a spontaneous uprising or two of their own against the ruling authorities, just like happened in the Arab world. Seen through this prism, unwanted spreading of rumors with any potential political implications or "viral properties" may be seen as an "early sign" of people bonding/moving together online in spontaneous ways the authorities frown upon. Ther

It's interesting how much more important the Chinese think rumors are. It's as though they want definitive information in circulation (where definitive herein means accepted/state sponsored). As though the population seeks rumors and gives them more importance.

That differs from how the US handles rumors by creating other news that may contradict, obscure and drown out rumors. Americans have been desensitized to "sensationalist" type journalism whereas in China they seem to still react to it.

You mean like they recently did when the media tried to inflame public sentiment by portraying a Latino man as a "white hispanic" who shot an African American "boy" (that was 17 and well over 6 feet tall)? Americans are still very much caught up in sensationalist journalism. It's pretty much all you see nowadays.

The only reason you think, free speech is so important, is that media promotes it for its own selfish purposes such as advertisement revenue and access to politicians. There are plenty of things that have far greater effect on everyone's life, and they are perceived as insignificant because media doesn't run a continuous propaganda campaign for them.

Pardon, sir, but free speech might just be the most important thing in a democracy. People vote based upon opinions formed from knowledge. If there is no free speech, there is no free dissemination of knowledge. I can't speak for China but here in America, it is a necessity. I'm quite vexed as to how someone with such a low UID came to have such odd opinions.

Because most of the time people do not conspire with paid propaganda workers to mislead others just for lulz. So independence and commonly recognized credentials are sufficient. Neither journalists/editors, nor media companies, not the whole population, satisfiy those requirements.

Oh, that's simple -- just choose the people who can not benefit from misleading others, and ban them from any work for those who do. In any civilized country, there are plenty of universities full of people in those very positions. They even are known to successfully censor each other in what is known to be a peer review process, and peer review usually deals with some very obscure and difficult to judge things.

Oh, that's simple -- just choose the people who can not benefit from misleading others

Any person can benefit from misleading others by having a "special arrangement" with someone else whose interests are involved. Said arrangement needs not be public, and you'll have a hard time proving it. Not to mention that the payment can be after the fact, and can involve things more subtle than cash.

In any civilized country, there are plenty of universities full of people in those very positions. They even are known to successfully censor each other in what is known to be a peer review process, and peer review usually deals with some very obscure and difficult to judge things.

And yet some of those same people go on to work for anti-AGW groups for money, lending their scientific credentials to publications that are mere propaganda.

Any person can benefit from misleading others by having a "special arrangement" with someone else whose interests are involved. Said arrangement needs not be public, and you'll have a hard time proving it. Not to mention that the payment can be after the fact, and can involve things more subtle than cash.

But that certainly is less likely to happen than flooding the media with paid editorials and outright misinformation, the inevitable outcome of "free speech".

And yet some of those same people go on to work for anti-AGW groups for money, lending their scientific credentials to publications that are mere propaganda.

There is a difference between few nutcases doing it through their little outlets while being treated like idiots by most of their colleagues, compared to most journalists doing it all the time.

It's not even a matter of making it possible to "get the opinion out" -- my point is, there should be an openly censored widely distributed kind of media. It's o

I invite you to make this same post entitled "Free speech stuff", which belittles free speech in favor of some other unspecified right, in future threads about copyright, OWS, wikileaks, net neutrality, etc. Well-reasoned thought should be able to assert itself in any context.

OWS is not speech, it's civil disobedience and petitioning the government. Most people still don't even know, what exactly the protesters' demands were.Wikileaks got no benefit from free speech protection, they had to shield themselves from governments and other entities whose information they distributed, by hiding abroad.Copyright infringement, no matter how stretched definition of copyright is used, never was successfully defended as a free speech issue.

Free speech is a right like any other. There is no such thing as a "more important right" or "less important right", they are equally so. To think less of one is to invite abuse upon it. Perhaps that's what we're seeing -- if people in China place greater value upon their lives and their ability to do business and make money within the Chinese system than on the right to speech, then things like this are able to occur as they are.

Go, read Universal Declaration of Human Rights. THOSE are actual rights most of mankind believes to be important, yet no government in history managed to implement all of them even at a basic level. There is always picking, choosing and priorities.

Oh, and don't even bother referring to your stupid Bill of Rights, it didn't even keep US from practicing slavery.

A vague rumor of "Military vehicles in Beijing" is a bit much. At least one web site is pairing that rumor with a stock shot of Chinese tanks on parade. [radio86.com]
The crackdown was a dumb move that gave the rumor credibility.

There is something big going on, though.
China is about to have a major change in leadership, but
China doesn't have an reliable way to pick its national leaders. There's a power struggle within the Party each time this happens. It's only happened three times since Mao, and the first two produced the Great Leap Forward disaster and the Cultural Revolution. The third, in 1992, went smoothly. Governments all over the world are watching this closely. Nobody knows who will be running China a year from now.

This year, seven of the nine Standing Committee members are retiring. One of the anointed successors, Bo Xilai, has been arrested on murder charges. [wsj.com] This has thrown the succession process into confusion. The South China Morning Post (out of Hong Kong) says this was a "liberal coup". This followed rumors of a coup last month, [huffingtonpost.co.uk] a coup which didn't happen. (In general, coups that are predicted don't happen - they require surprise.)

The Chinese government is desperately trying to prevent public involvement in the succession process. China does not have real elections. So "public involvement" means riots or civil wars. Historically, those have changed governments. So the Party is trying to keep the lid on.

Why does China bother even announcing it? Seems that if China was truly evil, it would just silently delete the posts, block the sites, maybe break some activist knee-caps. Must be that their elite and mainstream population is on board with censorship and the government is letting them know that something's being done about it. If the censorship was wildly unpopular there, any announcement would defeat the purpose of quelling protest.

I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories and crazy end-of-the-world stuff, but I was just thinking about the same thing. What if aliens were to finally visit the Earth? They'd be likely to head for the largest modern civilization, which is basically China. Would we ever hear about it, especially if something went wrong? Same deal with any other sort of globally important event or disaster. Weaponized nationalist pride, basically . . . scary.

You're trying to use the metric of countries = largest civilization. Any extraterrestrial visitors (probably) wouldn't know where China's borders were. My guess is they would go to the areas with the most light emitted at night [cg-files.com], which would probably be Western Europe, Eastern Seaboard of the US, or Japan.

I was thinking more in terms of population density combined with industrialization (cities, roads, power plants, etc.). Throw in your suggestion of brightest lights and you basically get Beijing or Shanghai.

Maybe because that is the frequency that concentrates most of our emited power. Also, It's not a single wave length, but the band of it with the biggest informational content that can be used by electon (or chemistry) based appliances.

Of course they will fail, after all it only took them 30 years to go from a 3rd world country where millions died of starvation to a first world nation. Their government system is unable to work and do whats best without democracy./sarcasm